hi

i'm looking for the latest stable release of php-fpm with php 5.3. now
i see that i can download the stable patch from launchpad, which seems
to be from 2009-09. but when i check your svn log i see many commits
that seem like useful to me, so i would prefer to have a later
revision. can maybe somebody recommend a revision of which he knows
that it is stable enough to more or less rely on it? otherwise i'll
have to start testing through the svn revisions to check which one is
ok for me. yes, i'm really looking for bleeding edge, even if not
perfect:-)

thanks,
mauro

i would use php.net's svn version then

if you want ultimate stability, php 5.2.x + the patch seems rock
solid. but for the newest features and what seems to be decent
stability so far, php 5.3.x + svn. launchpad shouldn't be involved in
a decision anymore

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:32 PM, replay <mauro.stettler@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi
>
> i'm looking for the latest stable release of php-fpm with php 5.3. now
> i see that i can download the stable patch from launchpad, which seems
> to be from 2009-09. but when i check your svn log i see many commits
> that seem like useful to me, so i would prefer to have a later
> revision. can maybe somebody recommend a revision of which he knows
> that it is stable enough to more or less rely on it? otherwise i'll
> have to start testing through the svn revisions to check which one is
> ok for me. yes, i'm really looking for bleeding edge, even if not
> perfect:-)
>
> thanks,
> mauro
>

thanks for your answer.

i'll go with php 5.3.x + svn for now. originally i was already trying
the php 5.3.x + svn, but then experienced some parsing problems of the
config file. it seems that the the value of min_spare_servers always
gets copied into max_spare_servers, which means that they will always
be equal, which means that start_servers also has to be exactly that
value. this made me assume that the latest svn revision is very
unstable, so i was hoping that somebody could give me a revision
number of which he knows that it works pretty decent already. i
havent' found this parsing problem in the bug database, so i'm going
to file a bug and then go back to the latest xml revision and hope
this bug doesn't appear there.

mauro



On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 14:39, Michael Shadle <mike503@gmail.com> wrote:
> i would use php.net's svn version then
>
> if you want ultimate stability, php 5.2.x + the patch seems rock
> solid. but for the newest features and what seems to be decent
> stability so far, php 5.3.x + svn. launchpad shouldn't be involved in
> a decision anymore
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:32 PM, replay <mauro.stettler@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hi
>>
>> i'm looking for the latest stable release of php-fpm with php 5.3. now
>> i see that i can download the stable patch from launchpad, which seems
>> to be from 2009-09. but when i check your svn log i see many commits
>> that seem like useful to me, so i would prefer to have a later
>> revision. can maybe somebody recommend a revision of which he knows
>> that it is stable enough to more or less rely on it? otherwise i'll
>> have to start testing through the svn revisions to check which one is
>> ok for me. yes, i'm really looking for bleeding edge, even if not
>> perfect:-)
>>
>> thanks,
>> mauro
>>
>

if you found a bug, please report it so that we could correct it.

thx a lot
++ Jerome

2010/5/4 Mauro Stettler <mauro.stettler@gmail.com>:
> thanks for your answer.
>
> i'll go with php 5.3.x + svn for now. originally i was already trying
> the php 5.3.x + svn, but then experienced some parsing problems of the
> config file. it seems that the the value of min_spare_servers always
> gets copied into max_spare_servers, which means that they will always
> be equal, which means that start_servers also has to be exactly that
> value. this made me assume that the latest svn revision is very
> unstable, so i was hoping that somebody could give me a revision
> number of which he knows that it works pretty decent already. i
> havent' found this parsing problem in the bug database, so i'm going
> to file a bug and then go back to the latest xml revision and hope
> this bug doesn't appear there.
>
> mauro
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 14:39, Michael Shadle <mike503@gmail.com> wrote:
>> i would use php.net's svn version then
>>
>> if you want ultimate stability, php 5.2.x + the patch seems rock
>> solid. but for the newest features and what seems to be decent
>> stability so far, php 5.3.x + svn. launchpad shouldn't be involved in
>> a decision anymore
>>
>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:32 PM, replay <mauro.stettler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> hi
>>>
>>> i'm looking for the latest stable release of php-fpm with php 5.3. now
>>> i see that i can download the stable patch from launchpad, which seems
>>> to be from 2009-09. but when i check your svn log i see many commits
>>> that seem like useful to me, so i would prefer to have a later
>>> revision. can maybe somebody recommend a revision of which he knows
>>> that it is stable enough to more or less rely on it? otherwise i'll
>>> have to start testing through the svn revisions to check which one is
>>> ok for me. yes, i'm really looking for bleeding edge, even if not
>>> perfect:-)
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> mauro
>>>
>>
>

reported:

http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=51736

2010/5/4 Jérôme Loyet <ml@fatbsd.com>:
> if you found a bug, please report it so that we could correct it.
>
> thx a lot
> ++ Jerome
>
> 2010/5/4 Mauro Stettler <mauro.stettler@gmail.com>:
>> thanks for your answer.
>>
>> i'll go with php 5.3.x + svn for now. originally i was already trying
>> the php 5.3.x + svn, but then experienced some parsing problems of the
>> config file. it seems that the the value of min_spare_servers always
>> gets copied into max_spare_servers, which means that they will always
>> be equal, which means that start_servers also has to be exactly that
>> value. this made me assume that the latest svn revision is very
>> unstable, so i was hoping that somebody could give me a revision
>> number of which he knows that it works pretty decent already. i
>> havent' found this parsing problem in the bug database, so i'm going
>> to file a bug and then go back to the latest xml revision and hope
>> this bug doesn't appear there.
>>
>> mauro
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 14:39, Michael Shadle <mike503@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> i would use php.net's svn version then
>>>
>>> if you want ultimate stability, php 5.2.x + the patch seems rock
>>> solid. but for the newest features and what seems to be decent
>>> stability so far, php 5.3.x + svn. launchpad shouldn't be involved in
>>> a decision anymore
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:32 PM, replay <mauro.stettler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> hi
>>>>
>>>> i'm looking for the latest stable release of php-fpm with php 5.3. now
>>>> i see that i can download the stable patch from launchpad, which seems
>>>> to be from 2009-09. but when i check your svn log i see many commits
>>>> that seem like useful to me, so i would prefer to have a later
>>>> revision. can maybe somebody recommend a revision of which he knows
>>>> that it is stable enough to more or less rely on it? otherwise i'll
>>>> have to start testing through the svn revisions to check which one is
>>>> ok for me. yes, i'm really looking for bleeding edge, even if not
>>>> perfect:-)
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> mauro
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

I'm on it.

2010/5/4 Mauro Stettler <mauro.stettler@gmail.com>:
> reported:
>
> http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=51736
>
> 2010/5/4 Jérôme Loyet <ml@fatbsd.com>:
>> if you found a bug, please report it so that we could correct it.
>>
>> thx a lot
>> ++ Jerome
>>
>> 2010/5/4 Mauro Stettler <mauro.stettler@gmail.com>:
>>> thanks for your answer.
>>>
>>> i'll go with php 5.3.x + svn for now. originally i was already trying
>>> the php 5.3.x + svn, but then experienced some parsing problems of the
>>> config file. it seems that the the value of min_spare_servers always
>>> gets copied into max_spare_servers, which means that they will always
>>> be equal, which means that start_servers also has to be exactly that
>>> value. this made me assume that the latest svn revision is very
>>> unstable, so i was hoping that somebody could give me a revision
>>> number of which he knows that it works pretty decent already. i
>>> havent' found this parsing problem in the bug database, so i'm going
>>> to file a bug and then go back to the latest xml revision and hope
>>> this bug doesn't appear there.
>>>
>>> mauro
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 14:39, Michael Shadle <mike503@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> i would use php.net's svn version then
>>>>
>>>> if you want ultimate stability, php 5.2.x + the patch seems rock
>>>> solid. but for the newest features and what seems to be decent
>>>> stability so far, php 5.3.x + svn. launchpad shouldn't be involved in
>>>> a decision anymore
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:32 PM, replay <mauro.stettler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> hi
>>>>>
>>>>> i'm looking for the latest stable release of php-fpm with php 5.3. now
>>>>> i see that i can download the stable patch from launchpad, which seems
>>>>> to be from 2009-09. but when i check your svn log i see many commits
>>>>> that seem like useful to me, so i would prefer to have a later
>>>>> revision. can maybe somebody recommend a revision of which he knows
>>>>> that it is stable enough to more or less rely on it? otherwise i'll
>>>>> have to start testing through the svn revisions to check which one is
>>>>> ok for me. yes, i'm really looking for bleeding edge, even if not
>>>>> perfect:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> mauro
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Can you try this patch please ?

Index: fpm_conf.c
===================================================================
--- fpm_conf.c (revision 298943)
+++ fpm_conf.c (working copy)
@@ -441,15 +441,15 @@
return -1;
}

- if (config->pm_max_spare_servers >
config->pm_max_children ||
+ if (config->pm_min_spare_servers >
config->pm_max_children ||
config->pm_max_spare_servers >
config->pm_max_children) {
zlog(ZLOG_STUFF, ZLOG_ALERT, "[pool
%s] min_spare_servers(%d) and max_spare_servers(%d) cannot be greater
than max_children(%d)",
- wp->config->name,
config->pm_max_spare_servers, config->pm_max_spare_servers,
config->pm_max_children);
+ wp->config->name,
config->pm_min_spare_servers, config->pm_max_spare_servers,
config->pm_max_children);
return -1;
}

- if (config->pm_max_spare_servers <
config->pm_max_spare_servers) {
- zlog(ZLOG_STUFF, ZLOG_ALERT, "[pool
%s] max_spare_servers(%d) must not be less than
min_spare_servers(%d)", wp->config->name,
config->pm_max_spare_servers, config->pm_max_spare_servers);
+ if (config->pm_max_spare_servers <
config->pm_min_spare_servers) {
+ zlog(ZLOG_STUFF, ZLOG_ALERT, "[pool
%s] max_spare_servers(%d) must not be less than
min_spare_servers(%d)", wp->config->name,
config->pm_max_spare_servers, config->pm_min_spare_servers);
return -1;
}


Le 4 mai 2010 09:12, Jérôme Loyet <ml@fatbsd.com> a écrit :
> I'm on it.
>
> 2010/5/4 Mauro Stettler <mauro.stettler@gmail.com>:
>> reported:
>>
>> http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=51736
>>
>> 2010/5/4 Jérôme Loyet <ml@fatbsd.com>:
>>> if you found a bug, please report it so that we could correct it.
>>>
>>> thx a lot
>>> ++ Jerome
>>>
>>> 2010/5/4 Mauro Stettler <mauro.stettler@gmail.com>:
>>>> thanks for your answer.
>>>>
>>>> i'll go with php 5.3.x + svn for now. originally i was already trying
>>>> the php 5.3.x + svn, but then experienced some parsing problems of the
>>>> config file. it seems that the the value of min_spare_servers always
>>>> gets copied into max_spare_servers, which means that they will always
>>>> be equal, which means that start_servers also has to be exactly that
>>>> value. this made me assume that the latest svn revision is very
>>>> unstable, so i was hoping that somebody could give me a revision
>>>> number of which he knows that it works pretty decent already. i
>>>> havent' found this parsing problem in the bug database, so i'm going
>>>> to file a bug and then go back to the latest xml revision and hope
>>>> this bug doesn't appear there.
>>>>
>>>> mauro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 14:39, Michael Shadle <mike503@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> i would use php.net's svn version then
>>>>>
>>>>> if you want ultimate stability, php 5.2.x + the patch seems rock
>>>>> solid. but for the newest features and what seems to be decent
>>>>> stability so far, php 5.3.x + svn. launchpad shouldn't be involved in
>>>>> a decision anymore
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:32 PM, replay <mauro.stettler@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i'm looking for the latest stable release of php-fpm with php 5.3. now
>>>>>> i see that i can download the stable patch from launchpad, which seems
>>>>>> to be from 2009-09. but when i check your svn log i see many commits
>>>>>> that seem like useful to me, so i would prefer to have a later
>>>>>> revision. can maybe somebody recommend a revision of which he knows
>>>>>> that it is stable enough to more or less rely on it? otherwise i'll
>>>>>> have to start testing through the svn revisions to check which one is
>>>>>> ok for me. yes, i'm really looking for bleeding edge, even if not
>>>>>> perfect:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> mauro
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Indeed been using the patch for ages here now an haven't had a single issue
on FreeBSD + php 5.2.12 with vbulletin + misc hosting sites, one of the best
upgrades we ever did was moving to nginx + php-fpm :)

Regards
Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Shadle" <mike503@gmail.com>
To: <highload-php-en@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: php-fpm stable revision for production


>i would use php.net's svn version then
>
> if you want ultimate stability, php 5.2.x + the patch seems rock
> solid. but for the newest features and what seems to be decent
> stability so far, php 5.3.x + svn. launchpad shouldn't be involved in
> a decision anymore
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:32 PM, replay <mauro.stettler@gmail.com> wrote:
>> hi
>>
>> i'm looking for the latest stable release of php-fpm with php 5.3. now
>> i see that i can download the stable patch from launchpad, which seems
>> to be from 2009-09. but when i check your svn log i see many commits
>> that seem like useful to me, so i would prefer to have a later
>> revision. can maybe somebody recommend a revision of which he knows
>> that it is stable enough to more or less rely on it? otherwise i'll
>> have to start testing through the svn revisions to check which one is
>> ok for me. yes, i'm really looking for bleeding edge, even if not
>> perfect:-)
>>
>> thanks,
>> mauro
>>
>

================================================
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it.

In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone +44 845 868 1337
or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.